Skip to main content

About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
for the country. against perceived internal and external dangerous forces. israel, united states, first at the regime. vicious than enough of that over the decades and afterward he went from credence to that notion, that paranoia. so the syrian population made this bargain with the regime that they would give freedoms in return for stability and security, especially with the examples of instability in lebanon and iraq on their borders. and so, that was the mandate. that was legitimacy for the asides to rule. they lost that because of the policy and bashar al-assad unleashing the dogs in terms of cracking down the opposition. his policy in instability and insecurity. so he no longer has legitimacy. in a broader sense he is solid. whether he stays in power, he'll never have the mandate to rule again and legitimacy he once enjoyed. >> host: are western policymakers assuming his fall is inevitable? and should they? >> guest: that's interesting. i've been contacted by media outlets wanting a quarter to an obituary for about a year now. every time the call, i say it's premature because the re
important managerial job in the world. president of the united states leader of the free world. my question was, how does he do a? how does he decide? how does he make incisions? how does the governor? >> the senate is about to return from recess for a series of those. a bill to continue funding the government for six months. a bill sponsored by montana senator, jon tester to ease regulations and was on some outdoor sports, fishing and hunting. and a bill by kentucky senator, randy paul to cut off u.s. aid to pakistan, libya and egypt. this is live coverage of the senate on c-span 2. senate will come to order. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: mr. president seeing the distinguished chairman of the foreign relations committee in the chair, i have a feeling i may be preaching to the converted but let me say that we were -- all of us were outraged by the mob that denigrated the muslim faith -- or by the video that denigrated the muslim faith but then by the mob violence, some of it rep
for the viewrs of others. and he disassociated the united states from the hateful video that was made in california that derotted the prophet mohammed and islam. and the president said this is his main point, he was passionate about it. the americans have an abiding belief in made a compelling case mr.. he also had a message for iran and that is that while we want to negotiate our differences through diplomacy if that's possible, that time is not unlimited. i thought it was a warning to the iranian government is a difficult deal with. i thought it was a important speech that the president gave yesterday in my. >> >> host: how about mitt romney can, you assess from what yoaf heard and have seen over the months. is there anything close to what you might call a romney doctrine on foreign policy? how would you encaps late it? >> guest: he it a smart and successful person. he's been talking about foreign policy. it's not the issue he wants to emphasis in the campaign. he wants the campaign to be obviously about the economy and about our unemployment rate. and it's an unusual position for r
in the british foreign office in the united states should have the capacity to keep our eye on more than one war upon. >> i suppose the key was to negotiate. it didn't work that way. if it didn't work that way in a western democracy, the do very little chance of the work in that way in afghanistan, therefore the extent to which there is an engagement, whether it's track to her otherwise with the taliban if they think they're important because you can wait a long, long time for the kind of progress in security level, which may never happen. >> you're absolutely right. i keep using that as an example. there was no military plan that has that is the subject to defeating the insurgency. our strategy is not defeating the insurgency. >> affair in which he said among the afghan leadership. >> i think they generally want assessment. they have huge differences on what terms are prepared to accept. if you talk to afghan women, they are very worthy attempts of settlement will be to their detriment. you also talk and they don't want to give up the amount of power they've had. they've had more power than the
with protecting the united states in particular. the obama administration changed our plans for european missile defense to leverage the existing missile defense system and put that system sure first in romania and poland later on. they also curtailed the ground-based midcourse. they stopped it at 30. i think the wrong administration would actually probably go back and change the balance again, much more in favor of national missile defense systems and we have actually seen in congress, republicans have been pushing the idea of deploying some of these ground-based and interceptors on the united states disclosed. another area of specific differences in shipbuilding. it is an imperfect measure, but the total number of ships in the navy -- it actually reached a low point at 279 ships, i should say. that was in the bush administration in 2007. we have come up since then i think we were about 280 ships right now. the obama administration plans to bring the shift count up to about 300. the goal is still 313. but if you look over 830 year shipbuilding plan, and averages over 30 years. so if we graduall
of their individual country members, an [inaudible] that tends to be the united states and a few others. so yes, there's has been some reor yenation. there's the strengthening of international substitutes. yes, country like china, india, brazil need to be gavin given a larger role. they are nottism executing. they need leadership from within. and brent's point is there are not a lot of countries who are capable or trusted to provide that leadership. and that's why [inaudible] there is a defusion of power in the world even though that's going change how the united states leads in the world, i think brent is right. and i think general jones would agree, we need to get our house in order for domestic purposes but also so we can help provide leadership for the international community in dealing with the problems. >> i think -- [inaudible] the attitude is understandable. the world doesn't appreciate it. to hell with them. let's take care of ourselves. we're not talking about leadership in the world as an awe truistic thing. school of foreign service it's a fallup question to that. america has created an in
a national security standpoint in my memory but the threat is thread is not outside the united states at this time. at their inability to get their act together and in my view the greatest risk we face from national security standpoint. we want to drill in on this today and i want to say a special thank you to these remarkable leaders who have decided, as talking with chairman gray and he said he has been spending too much time on the outside avoiding trouble and now he realizes the country needs to get in the middle of it to make trouble and i'm thankful he is willing to do something like that. let me turn it to sam subeight. one thing i will say when you work for a senator you work your whole life for them and the advantage of coming to csis as i get paid, so he is the chairman of the board. i turn it over to you. >> thank you john, thank you very much. at least i never did to you what my former senate colleague did to george tenet when he was head of the cia. he used them call them up and make his hotel reservations around the world. [laughter] so i'm not that bad, john. thanks joh
there was a bill in the united states senate. and what it would do is extend tax cuts for 98% of the families here in massachusetts and 97% of small businesses. and senator brown voted no. now why did he vote no? because they weren't enough tax breaks for the top 2% and the top 3%. for me this is just an example of whose side you stand on. are you holding out? are you hanging in there for the top 2%? are eager to fight for working people. >> excuse me. with all due respect, you're misrepresenting my record. and the only person in this race he was hurt in the middle class wants to raise taxes as professor warren. she would not have supported president obama's compromise bill that not only kept taxes low for everybody for the last two years, but also take care of an employment benefits. she would not have supported that because the fee increases -- sorry, the fact we didn't tax more a high income earners. so she would've been about taxing one taxpayer middle-class people. this is about 700,000 jobs. i did make those numbers up, but 3.4 trillion are all things you have said. he won another million in
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8